RRS New Tripod TVC-33 Versa

Andy · October 13, 2009

Check out Really Right Stuff's new Tripod - what do you think? :ear

cmason · October 13, 2009

Andy wrote:

Check out Really Right Stuff's new Tripod - what do you think?

Sorry I couldn't make it past $925! Are you effen kidding me? I thought $600 for a Gitzo was pricy, but this jaw dropping.

I am sure it is made of the best materials, like space shuttle tiles and spent uranium, but dang, is it going to be 2x as good as the Gitzo? Wow.

[edit sorry, this is more a gripe than anything constructive, but it is relevant]

WingsOfLovePhoto · October 13, 2009

Andy wrote:

Check out Really Right Stuff's new Tripod - what do you think?

In the market for a new tripod but also couldn't get passed the almost 1k price tag! Bet it is really nice though!

ian408 · October 13, 2009

Feature wise, it's got a lot going for it. Vibration dampening, offset leg brackets, etc. However, compared to other tripods, I don't really see myself buying this. It might be $100-$150 better but it's retail is much more than I'm willing to spend. Especially considering you'd likely need a head to go with. I guess the good news is you'd get a $40 discount on head.

kdog · October 13, 2009

More expensive than the Gitzo, but not even close to double the price. Closest Gitzo appears to be the 3531LSV or the 3530LS, both of which have almost identical specifications to the RRS tripod, and sell for $725. (Same weight, folded length, maximum height, and minimum height). So the RRS is $200 more than the Gitzo, but they'll knock $40 off the price of the ballhead, which you're going to buy either way. So really you're only spending extra $160 for the RRS. Supposedly RRS has added a few minor improvements over the Gitzo units, but nothing major as near as I can tell.

Probably the biggest difference is that the Gitzo 353X units are rated for 40 lbs, while RRS claims 50 lbs for theirs. Seeing how both tripods are carbon and weigh exactly the same, I'm a bit leary of the RRS claim, especially because there's no industry standards on weight ratings. Most folks will never put that much weight on a camera tripod, so really those numbers are marketing fluff anyway. My biggest issue would be that the RRS is an unproven design. But lots of folks will be buying them just because they're RRS, so I'm sure we'll be hearing lots of reviews soon.

-joel

divamum · October 14, 2009

Ok, genuine question: what exactly is worth nearly $1k in a tripod? Which I guess begs the question .... what exactly does one NEED in a tripod? Sure, I know you can get a more stable platform than the el cheapo model that I use, and I can imagine that heavy video and film cameras (ie studio/pro) need a solid base to hold them up. I could maybe even see something built like a tank being useful for sports and press pros who're toting humungo tele- lenses on full-size pro cameras.

But for the average consumer, what more is necessary than a set of sticks to hold a decent head?

Again, serious question - I'm not being snarky. The tripod is for sure a useful tool, but it doesn't take the pictures and dropping that kind of bank on what amounts to a glorified stepstool seems like a LOT of money that can be better directed to somewhere else in the picture-taking chain....

ian408 · October 14, 2009

It is true that a more stable platform helps in the picture taking process. The question is how much do you need? And if heavy equals stable, then why make a tripod out of carbon fiber (except to make it easier to carry around)? Why not aluminum or steel or for the lightweight set, titanium?

hgernhardtjr · October 14, 2009

Actually, this is what Andy needs: GT-90TT

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/527445-REG/Gitzo_GT90TT_GT90TT_90th_Anniversary_Limited.html

kdog · October 14, 2009

divamum wrote:

Ok, genuine question: what exactly is worth nearly $1k in a tripod? Which I guess begs the question .... what exactly does one NEED in a tripod? Sure, I know you can get a more stable platform than the el cheapo model that I use, and I can imagine that heavy video and film cameras (ie studio/pro) need a solid base to hold them up. I could maybe even see something built like a tank being useful for sports and press pros who're toting humungo tele- lenses on full-size pro cameras.

But for the average consumer, what more is necessary than a set of sticks to hold a decent head?

Again, serious question - I'm not being snarky. The tripod is for sure a useful tool, but it doesn't take the pictures and dropping that kind of bank on what amounts to a glorified stepstool seems like a LOT of money that can be better directed to somewhere else in the picture-taking chain....

This is primarily a tripod for wildlife photographers who need a light-weight but super-stable platform for 500mm and 600mm lenses out in the field. When you spend $5K to $12K on a lens, another grand or two to hold it properly is peanuts. And of course it'll be a super tripod for landscape, portraits or anything else you're likely to throw at it.

BTW, you buy a tripod like this exactly once in your life. Contrast that to say camera bodies which you upgrade every few years. Seems like a pretty good deal to me.

kdog · October 14, 2009

ian408 wrote:

It is true that a more stable platform helps in the picture taking process. The question is how much do you need? And if heavy equals stable, then why make a tripod out of carbon fiber (except to make it easier to carry around)? Why not aluminum or steel or for the lightweight set, titanium?

Two reasons come to my mind why carbon fiber is better than metal for a tripod. First reason is that carbon fiber is inherently "damp", or vibration resistant. Ping a titanium bicycle tube and it "rings". Ping a carbon bike tube and all you'll get is a click. Think about what a carbon fiber wind chime would sound like -- not much.

The other reason that comes to mind for me is warmth. Carbon fiber is warm to carry and operate in freezing weather. Metal is basically a huge heat sink and will suck the heat out of your hands quicker than you can imagine, even through your shooting gloves. I'm sure there are strength issues as well, like crush and crimp resistance, although those probably apply more to aluminum than titanium. Titanium is amazingly tough, but it's very springy.

Tango · October 14, 2009

Diva, trust me, a nice tripod for landscapers is what fast glass is to you.
its the benefits!

I have a $300 setup, and lust after this tripod and a bh-55, just like you do a 135L 2.8, or was it the 85?

some reasons to spend $$$ on a tripod system....
#1 weight on my backpack.
#2 ease of use, adjusting quickly is important when the light is fading fast.
#3 vibration from wind or whatever... especially during long exposures!
#4 adjustablity for very low shots or even high like when in the slot canyons when one does not want to bend down to a tripod height just to crank the neck to look up into the eyepiece.
#5 multiple exposures, multiple exposures, multiple exposures.
#6 really i could go on, but I think 1 - 5 helps explain...

Awais Yaqub · October 14, 2009

925 only for legs !

Man i have to sale my camera and lens to get this

20DNoob · October 14, 2009

Overpriced, as with most of RRS offerings IMO.

divamum · October 14, 2009

Ok Kdog and Aaron - that does help explain. Like I said, I wasn't being snarky, just geuinely baffled how something that wasn't in the actual image-chain could justify that kind of cost!

Oh, and it's the 135L f2.0 if you please - 2.8 is a slowpoke

AaronNelson wrote:

Diva, trust me, a nice tripod for landscapers is what fast glass is to you.
its the benefits!

I have a $300 setup, and lust after this tripod and a bh-55, just like you do a 135L 2.8, or was it the 85?

some reasons to spend $$$ on a tripod system....
#1 weight on my backpack.
#2 ease of use, adjusting quickly is important when the light is fading fast.
#3 vibration from wind or whatever... especially during long exposures!
#4 adjustablity for very low shots or even high like when in the slot canyons when one does not want to bend down to a tripod height just to crank the neck to look up into the eyepiece.
#5 multiple exposures, multiple exposures, multiple exposures.
#6 really i could go on, but I think 1 - 5 helps explain...

Tango · October 14, 2009

right, lol... see how much I care about that lens?

Andy · October 14, 2009

20DNoob wrote:

Overpriced, as with most of RRS offerings IMO.

Hah - their ballheads are priced to last a lifetime. I've never known such quality machinery, and I'm fine with the way they price it - it's really a great value.

pathfinder · October 15, 2009

The other choice for tripods, not mentioned is wood. As warm as carbon fibre and a lot prettier to look at.

Reis sells a tripod for 8x10 cameras that is rated for 60 pounds - the A-100-2 and it is cheaper than the RRS. The tripod does weigh 15 pound however.

Ansel Adams and Edward Weston used Reis tripods, or that is what Reis says anyway:D

Or if you want a cheaper version.....

sjms · November 26, 2009

divamum wrote:

Ok Kdog and Aaron - that does help explain. Like I said, I wasn't being snarky, just geuinely baffled how something that wasn't in the actual image-chain could justify that kind of cost!

Oh, and it's the 135L f2.0 if you please - 2.8 is a slowpoke

let me explain it to you
1- a tripod is part of the image chain. you just may not think so becuse it doesn't have glass or electronics in it. as a tripod user for the past 33 years i can catagorically say it is an important tool of composition.
2- actually the real nearest gitzo to the TVC is the 55xx series since both support in the 50-55lb range and weighs in at 6.3lbs+. in addition the weight of the TVC is 4lbs and thats in the same class as the 35xx series but then the 35xx series doesn't support anywhere near as much at lets see 39.6lbs. so essentially buying 1 TVC-33 tripod makes both of those redundant
3- the actually support apex is so much better designed and substantially stronger then the the split apex of the gitzo. the construction pretty much makes gitzo look second class in this type of tripod (aka: systematic)

oh by the way i have owned 2 gitzo models and currently own a GT2540ex model in addition to the TVC-33 from RRS. i have been dealing with RRS since 1991. though for some over priced they make it the way it should be and they work the way they're designed to.

the great saying "gitzo, the last tripod you'll own" is no longer true

i got it because it is plainly a superior tool to gitzo.

sjms · November 26, 2009

here is a link to an image i shot approx a month ago.
it was shot at iso200 at f11 and it took 10 sec to expose.
http://www.pbase.com/crusader/image/118374578

yes a tool of composition

tzipple · December 15, 2009

Priced Right
Is a Canon 5D MKII worth 3 times as much as a Rebel? It depends on your needs and preferences in gear I suppose, but the answer for many people is "of course! I love RRS gear and would bet on their new pod being worth $925, particularly if I shot a lot with 400 and 500mm lenses. For my needs a Gitzo 2540 works well, but someday...

cmason wrote:

Sorry I couldn't make it past $925! Are you effen kidding me? I thought $600 for a Gitzo was pricy, but this jaw dropping.

I am sure it is made of the best materials, like space shuttle tiles and spent uranium, but dang, is it going to be 2x as good as the Gitzo? Wow.

[edit sorry, this is more a gripe than anything constructive, but it is relevant]

robscomputer · December 31, 2009

I've been using a 3021 and 486 combo, but searching for my next tripod. While I agree this RRS tripod is expensive, it's really an important piece of taking photos.

When I bought my first tripod, a plastic SLIK from a local camera store, I was really not expecting to pay a high price for something that just held my camera. At the time I was using an Minolta 3xi film SLR, which was extremely light weight. A few years later I upgraded to a larger Canon EOS A2E, this is where I started to noticed how bad that tripod really was.

After having some problems supporting my light weight SLR, the tripod finally cracked when I used it in cold weather. It was very frustrating to have this break just when I was planning to take photos with a friend, especially when we were shooting at night and there was very little I could do without a tripod.

I ordered a 3021pro and 486 head soon after I started with my 10D which worked pretty good but if I used a camera in any position other than centered would droop or start to lean from the weight. Also I could see from my photos that my camera would take sharp photos but when I took longer exposures they were less sharp. I used all of the techniques, mirror lockup, remote, stable ground, but only thing that helped was increasing the shutter speed.

Needless to say, I know how important a tripod can be, coming from some bad examples.

Also after looking over the Gitzo and the RRS tripod legs, I really like how the center does not rely upon a single bolt but 3 set screws. Not to say that I would stress the Gitzo to the point of failure, but it's good to see people improving an older design.

Here's a good video of the tripod.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04Bdn2_b_PA

kdog · December 31, 2009

robscomputer wrote:

Also after looking over the Gitzo and the RRS tripod legs, I really like how the center does not rely upon a single bolt but 3 set screws. Not to say that I would stress the Gitzo to the point of failure, but it's good to see people improving an older design.

I don't see that as an improvement. Now you have three set screws that you have to worry about loosening instead of a single bolt with a nylock nut on it that's never going to loosen. I think the setscrew design of the RRS is more of an artifact of the materials and manufacturing choices than anything. It's being touted as an improvement, but what exactly is improved? I've never heard of anybody losing the head mount from the apex casting before, have you? It's a failure mode that doesn't exist as far as I know. A supposed solution to a non-problem. Likewise, I've never heard of anybody breaking the cast magnesium apex on the Gitzo, so why is the machined aluminum apex on the RRS better? It's different, most likely because CNC milling is cheaper than casting in small manufacturing quantities. Also, perhaps somebody can explain to me how a larger diameter thinner-walled tube is more crush resistant than a smaller diameter thicker walled tube, because frankly I don't understand those physics.

Another thing to keep in mind is that today's Gitzo tripods are something like a 3rd generation design. RRS is a first generation design. Did they get it perfect the first time? Or in a year, are they going to improve it?

Don't get me wrong, I love my RRS equipment, and I'm sure they make a great tripod. But that doesn't suddenly make the Gitzo a bad tripod as a previous (not you, Rob) member implied. The jury is still out and will be for a few years until we see how the RRS tripods are holding up. Even then, Gitzo will continue being an excellent choice.

robscomputer · December 31, 2009

Kdog,

All excellent points and I agree, it's too new to tell if this design will stand up to years of abuse. I should have noted that while I've used low end tripods, my experience with high end tripods is none, so I'm posting upon photos and the design, not the actual construction. From what I've read, Gitzo makes great tripods, and RRS makes great ballheads. It just seemed like time that RRS would venture out into the tripod market, and offer an alternative.

The three set screws does seem like a bother, but I liked the idea how the spider was one piece where as on the Gitzo it's a clamp method to hold the center mount. Is this weaker? I doubt it, but to me looks cleaner. Honestly, I just like CNC gear and something that is like this just looks cool.

In the end, it's just going to be time to find out the quirks and problems. A problem that I do see with the RRS is by using only set screws to hold the center mount, you loose adjustable for any larger or smaller sized center pieces. This might be an issue if for example, you overtighen a set screw and damages the internal locking ring of the RRS, now there's no way of removing the center mount.

Kyle · April 27, 2011

spending $69 additional for a "naturescape" plate to make a $699 gitzo tripod secure is imo absurd, the rrs tripod needs no additional plates or parts to keep the camera and lens from falling off of the tripod, and yes it does happen hence the reason the additional plate is sold for gitzo tripods, gitzo makes great tripods but they should be great and ready right out of the box without an additional cost to ensure they are secure.

Dan7312 · April 27, 2011

The RSS set-screw design makes it easy to replace the top plate with a center column plate or, in the 3-series anyhow, a leveling base plate and be pretty confident you tightened things up properly.

kdog wrote: »

I don't see that as an improvement..

BradfordBenn · April 27, 2011

My heartburn is not with the cost, as I do believe in paying for a long lasting tool. My heart burn is that there are so many options out there and prioritizing purchases. Might have to go re-read portions of Andy's book
to review my equipment shopping list order.

Ric Grupe · April 27, 2011

This is an old thread people!

(Just sayin')

Andy · April 27, 2011

BradfordBenn wrote: »

My heartburn is not with the cost, as I do believe in paying for a long lasting tool. My heart burn is that there are so many options out there and prioritizing purchases. Might have to go re-read portions of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0470586850/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=bradfordbennc-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399349&creativeASIN=0470586850">Andy's book</a><img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=&l=as2&o=1&a=0470586850&camp=217145&creative=399349" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important;" />
to review my equipment shopping list order.

I've recently switched from the already-amazing Gitzo Tripod to the Really Right Stuff TVC-23 and -33. The RRS gear is amazingly, obviously much sturdier and more well-built. Not only the thicker tubes (without adding gigantic weight at all), but their "Sure Grip Apex Lock" system for meshing the ballhead with the tripod - it comes together so much sturdier. The craftsmanship is impeccable, the whole affair just feels so much better. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/iloveyou.gif" border="0" alt="" >

mattyoung · December 19, 2011

Gitzo service is lousy
I need some repair for my Gitzo Traveler tripod. It not plain easy to determine how to get repair service from them. First of all, looking for how to get repair service on www.gitzo.com leads you nowhere. Only on www.gitzo.us do they tell you to go to Manfrotto. From Manfrotto, I left many phone message and email and got no reply. When finally I got someone name John on the repair line. He was not all that polite nor helpful. He said "Send it in to us and we will see".

Gitzo's service doesn't correspond to their higher price. I will not be buying anymore of their product. I will look to RRS when I am ready to get a new tripod. I have many RRS stuffs. So far nothing went wrong so I haven't needed service from them. However, I have called them and every time, there was a cheerful live human on the other end eager to help.

ian408 · December 19, 2011

mattyoung wrote: »

However, I have called them and every time, there was a cheerful live human on the other end eager to help.

When I first bought my BH-55, it wasn't quite right and so I called them. They were awesome. They were so accommodating and helpful. I was offered several choices including someone who would help me fix it on the phone (which I did).

Gotta say RRS is pretty darn good with regard to customer support and just dealing with in general.

Nolte1964 · March 9, 2012

Just bought
I just bought this tripod with the bh55 head and the l brackets excited to get it should have by the 15th

RRS New Tripod TVC-33 Versa

Comments